A bodiless, persona less character?

[Sindyr]

I have three comments to make:

1.
I have been embracing in this conversation the very qualities under discussion.  Instead of being cautious and defensive, I have made myself open and vulnerable.  I have been genuine, truthful, honest, and sincere in the latest interchanges with you, Tony, on this thread.

So that's why your latest response is hurtful to me, that is why I have some feelings of betrayal.  I feel like I decided to trust you, and what you wrote above seems to show me that I should not have.  It's very disappointing to me.  But, since there is nothing I can do about it, and since my mistake may have been in trusting you to really engage with me - it just seems to me to be more fuel to fire of never letting oneself be that open, of always keeping some defense up. Anyways, I felt that the spirit of your response was innapropriate vis-avis the spirit of my side of the conversation - but that is not your problem, it is mine, and I will simply have to deal with it.

2.
You keep repeating stuff like "You still haven't made an argument.  I've still made dozens." and other similar statements of what seems to me to be bravado.  Well guess what?  I feel exactly the same way - that *you* Tony haven't made an argument and *I* have made dozens.  I will admit that *perhaps* I am wrong and you are right - because as a person committed to an open mind I have to.  I can't see you making any similar consession. In any case, as things stand, I fimly believe I have said many significant and valid things that you not only have not countered, most of them you haven't even addresssed.

We both have strong opinions.  We both believe that we are saying something valid, vital, and true; and that the other is not.  We both claim to be right.  There are only 3 differences between us:
a) I am open to the idea that it may be you that is in the right, despite the fact that I at this moment cannot see how..  You do not seem to be open to the idea that you may be wrong and I may be right, despite the fact that currently *you* don't see how.
b) You are the forum moderator, which gives you abilities and powers that I do not posses.
c) Obviously, one of use is more correct and the other is not, though we currently disagree on which is which.

It may be that you have a blind spot that prevents you from seeing that I am right and you are wrong.  It may be that the blind spot is mine, and the situation reversed.  It may be that there are no blind spots, and that our language and starting paradigms are simply completely incompatible for finding agreement.

Whatever the reason, I cannot at this time see how it can be profitable for either of us to continue to enagage the other, especially on this or similar topics.  So perhaps we shouldn't?  Unless we want to get bogged down in a repeating cycle of us basically saying to each other, "You're wrong, and I'm right"

3.
The topic and purpose of this thread is to discuss non-persona-ed characters in Capes, their use, and ramifications.  I think the interchange between you and I has veered somewhat off of that topic, to land somewhere nearer the topic of whether non-consensual coercive play in Capes is necessary for Capes to work and whether it is a good thing in general.
To bring things *back* on topic I give you this:
a) It seems entirely valid within the written rules of Capes to create a non-persona-ed character sheet and character.
b) PLC's (Persona-Less Characters) seem to allow me, and I would imagine others, to more easily disregard coercive play, making each conflict more of a choice of whether or not to get involved, and less of a manipulation.
c) PLC's also give much wider lattitude for the scope of one's involvement.  By playing a PLC such as Kismet, I can partake of Spidey's struggle with Doc Ock, Ock's struggle with Spidey, or the experience of a third party.  I am not locked into one persona's perspective, giving me a much wider vantage point.
d) PLC's, by the very nature of Capes and it's meta-game seem more suited to Capes than PC's, and more of a pure evolution of the very Capes fundamental principles.

Hopefully that will bring us out of the muck of the off-topic irreconcilable difference we have Tony, and back into the thrust of this thread.

If you start a thread about the value of coercive play, I may partake of it.  But I am unfortunately not convinced that you and I can ever see eye to eye on this.

All the best.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Sindyr, I can't recall a single incident when Tony has used moderator powers against you. (Yes, he's warned you not to bring up what he considers extraneous and distracting arguments in certain threads, but he's never even threatened to prevent you from raising those arguments in their own threads, nor has he actually moved any posts or closed any threads that I know of).

Tony, I actually think Sindyr's made a significant breakthrough towards (our way of) understanding Capes in starting to think of characters as being no more nor less than the real-person-playing's ability to influence the story. I think Sindyr's still got one eye blindfolded in his insistence that a "persona-less" character fulfills this role more easily than any other kind, but maybe that realization will also come in time.



And, as Sindyr asked, back to that precise topic -- and with apologies for point-by-pointing, but in this case it seems clearest:

a) It seems entirely valid within the written rules of Capes to create a non-persona-ed character sheet and character.

Absolutely.

b) PLC's (Persona-Less Characters) seem to allow me, and I would imagine others, to more easily disregard coercive play, making each conflict more of a choice of whether or not to get involved, and less of a manipulation.

If it works for you, great, though I'm not sure I've ever experienced "coercive" play as you describe it.

c) PLC's also give much wider lattitude for the scope of one's involvement.  By playing a PLC such as Kismet, I can partake of Spidey's struggle with Doc Ock, Ock's struggle with Spidey, or the experience of a third party.  I am not locked into one persona's perspective, giving me a much wider vantage point.

Not really.
Sure, I can narrate the Abilities of an abstraction like "the Hand of Fate" into all sorts of situations where I'd be hard-put to justify the physical presence or indirect influence of "Joe Blow," but conversely it's harder to narrate "Hand of Fate" staking Debt because, with no personality, it's tricky to explain how it cares about anything. Better for one thing, worse for the other.
And you're never "locked into one persona's perspective" in Capes. You can introduce new characters for a single Story Token at any time, or for free at the start of a new scene, and even if you're playing the same guy all the time, you're free to narrate what happens from an external perspective as opposed to through his eyes.

d) PLC's, by the very nature of Capes and it's meta-game seem more suited to Capes than PC's, and more of a pure evolution of the very Capes fundamental principles.

Since I fundamentally disagree with you that there's much of a difference between "PLCs" and "PCs," naturally I don't considered one or the other "more suited... [or] more of a pure evolution."



I think all sides have pretty much wrapped up concluding arguments at this point.

[Sindyr]

b) PLC's (Persona-Less Characters) seem to allow me, and I would imagine others, to more easily disregard coercive play, making each conflict more of a choice of whether or not to get involved, and less of a manipulation.

If it works for you, great, though I'm not sure I've ever experienced "coercive" play as you describe it.

It may only exist for me and perhaps a handful or others, and it may be entirely subjective.  It may be a moot point.  Suffice it to say, I think it *will* work for me. :)

c) PLC's also give much wider lattitude for the scope of one's involvement.  By playing a PLC such as Kismet, I can partake of Spidey's struggle with Doc Ock, Ock's struggle with Spidey, or the experience of a third party.  I am not locked into one persona's perspective, giving me a much wider vantage point.

Not really.
Sure, I can narrate the Abilities of an abstraction like "the Hand of Fate" into all sorts of situations where I'd be hard-put to justify the physical presence or indirect influence of "Joe Blow," but conversely it's harder to narrate "Hand of Fate" staking Debt because, with no personality, it's tricky to explain how it cares about anything. Better for one thing, worse for the other.
And you're never "locked into one persona's perspective" in Capes. You can introduce new characters for a single Story Token at any time, or for free at the start of a new scene, and even if you're playing the same guy all the time, you're free to narrate what happens from an external perspective as opposed to through his eyes.

There are two aspects of this I think are significant.
First and simplest, if I have Spidey's character sheet in hand, and I want to find some way to affect the fight that Catwoman and Dock Ock are having while Spidey is slumped unconscious, I am going to have to do more work to apply "Spidey-Sense" on the character sheet to help Catwoman win the conflict.  I am not saying I couldn't make it work, I am just saying it's simpler and more efficient for me to have a Kismet character sheet and simply use the ability "Good Prevails"
Second, by having 12 Spiderman abilities listed in front of me, and by trying to figure out how to use them to win conflicts, I will naturally be drawn into looking at things from Spiderman's perspective.  By having a character sheet based on a wider perspective, such as Kismet, Karma, Poetic Justice, or whatnot, I will instinctively and naturally be open to taking a wider view than only how things are affecting Spiderman.

d) PLC's, by the very nature of Capes and it's meta-game seem more suited to Capes than PC's, and more of a pure evolution of the very Capes fundamental principles.

Since I fundamentally disagree with you that there's much of a difference between "PLCs" and "PCs," naturally I don't considered one or the other "more suited... [or] more of a pure evolution."

For me, the two differences I tried to outline above lead to statement d.  I am not sure I can coherently explain why I feel D is true, especially not under intense scrutiny.  But I did want to mention that it does indeed seem to "feel right" to me.  I do not ask that anyone necessarily share this viewpoint if it does seem right to them.  D is not about anything I can prove at this time, just wanted to share my perception.

[TonyLB]

If you start a thread about the value of coercive play, I may partake of it.  But I am unfortunately not convinced that you and I can ever see eye to eye on this.

Why would I have any interest in starting such a thread?  It has no bearing on this discussion.

If you want to say "A system that rewarded people for finding their fellow player's weak spots and ruthlessly jabbing at them would be an evil, immoral, unevolved system" then that's fine.  I totally support your right to say that.  It's a value judgment.

That has no bearing, one way or the other, on the simple fact that Capes is that system.

Like, you can't do the syllogism this way:

• Capes is a good system for me
• A good system for me will not penalize me for not taking a risk that could hurt me badly.
• Therefore Capes will not penalize me for not taking a risk that could hurt me badly.

... because we have so many people who have actually played the system, and know that it will penalize you for not taking such risks.

So when you argue that a good system for you would not penalize that defensive stance it doesn't prove that Capes doesn't do that ... it just proves that Capes is not a good system for you.  See?

[Sindyr]

Sindyr, I can't recall a single incident when Tony has used moderator powers against you. (Yes, he's warned you not to bring up what he considers extraneous and distracting arguments in certain threads, but he's never even threatened to prevent you from raising those arguments in their own threads, nor has he actually moved any posts or closed any threads that I know of).

I want to take a brief moment and acknowledge that this is the case.  I do not recall ever being moderated by Tony throughout our disagreements.

[Sindyr]

If you start a thread about the value of coercive play, I may partake of it.  But I am unfortunately not convinced that you and I can ever see eye to eye on this.

Why would I have any interest in starting such a thread?  It has no bearing on this discussion.

Fair enough.  I just thought we may have (and may still) be off topic for this thread, and if that was the case, wanted to invite you to create a new one. I will levae it in your hands to make that decision.

If you want to say "A system that rewarded people for finding their fellow player's weak spots and ruthlessly jabbing at them would be an evil, immoral, unevolved system" then that's fine.  I totally support your right to say that.  It's a value judgment.

Following you so far, and agreeing.

That has no bearing, one way or the other, on the simple fact that Capes is that system.

I do not agree with you here.  What you describe is a particular tactic you can use in Capes, if the situation presents itself.  However, it is not the only tactic or the heart of the game.  In chess, there exists many opportunity to trade pieces - for example, take their queen and lose your own.  That tactic is not the soul of chess and is not the only tool in the toolbox for playing chess.  I believe the same is true about coercive play in Capes.  I think, and please do correct me if I am wrong, that you believe coercive play to be the heart of Capes, and further believe that one can neither avoid engaging in corcive play not avoid being engaged in coercive play.

I believe that all of that is incorrect, specifically, I believe:
-There are ways to validly play Capes effectively and well without using coercive play.
-I can play in such a way as to be uncoercible, and still partake in a valid Capes game that is fun and fulfilling for all.
-I can play in such a way as to avoid coercing others, and still partake in a valid Capes game that is fun and fulfilling for all.

You seem to be telling me the above three statements are incompatible with Capes.I would be open to saying why I think that's not the case if you were truly interested in my thoughts on the matter and listened with a truly open mind.

Like, you can't do the syllogism this way:

• Capes is a good system for me
• A good system for me will not penalize me for not taking a risk that could hurt me badly.
• Therefore Capes will not penalize me for not taking a risk that could hurt me badly.

... because we have so many people who have actually played the system, and know that it will penalize you for not taking such risks.

I believe I have a tactic with which I can avoid being hurt badly, and still engage in a valid game of Capes that is fun and fulfilling for all. Even if the other players have the coercive play tactic in their arsenal and use it.

So when you argue that a good system for you would not penalize that defensive stance it doesn't prove that Capes doesn't do that ... it just proves that Capes is not a good system for you.  See?

Your syllogism is flawless *if* I agreed both that Capes required coercive play and that there was no defense against it.  However, since it appears that both of those points are in questions, the case is still not made.

[Threlicus]

I have an idea about why Tony and Sindyr seem to be talking past each other, and I'm going to try to express it and hope not to cause more problems than I solve. All the below is my interpretation and perception, of course, and I apologize for any misrepresentation.

Sindyr is seeking some area of the game where he is safe, where his concept rules and what he says cannot be challenged by anyone else. In traditional RPGs this is the area inside a PC's skin (modulo personality mechanics, but let's not go there for now). In Capes as written the space available for this is very small -- basically things forbidden by the Comics Code and what is (only temporarily, of course) forbidden by the Not Yet rule. I think that fact makes Sindyr uncomfortable.
Tony is saying that you cannot play the game well unless you have a significant space where you *can* be challenged, and the bigger that space the better, the more engaging the game is. Commonly that space is around 'your' character -- defending Doc Achilles looking brilliant got Tony going, I think -- but it certainly doesn't have to be the only space, even in 'beginner-level' Capes.

Sindyr is finding ways (within the rules as written) to carve out certain inviolate narrative space. Tony is saying that, if you end up not having anywhere to be challenged, Capes won't work. These are not incompatible things. Why can't Sindyr have spaces that are 'inviolate', as long as he has plenty of places where he can be challenged, where he does *care* what happens, even if it's not 'his character getting altered' kinds of challenges? If Sindyr, the player, really wants a romantic triangle in the story, even if he's not playing one of the characters directly, he's going to get heavily involved and committed to conflicts bringing out the conflict. Even if none of the characters anywhere in the story are his 'avatar', I can certainly imagine him getting engaged and stoked about defending certain aspects of the story. On the other hand, Sindyr could do this just as easily with a personaed (is that a word?) character, not letting himself get too attached to the character any more than he would as affecting the story as Kismet; but maybe Sindyr finds that kind of detachment from 'his' characters difficult to achieve.

I do think that this constitutes advanced play, though. RPGers have a natural attachment to 'their' characters, and so Capes uses that attachment as easy creation of engagement, and that works as a good place to learn Capes. It will be more challenging for Sindyr to find places to allow others to challenge him and engage him, the more space he claims as inviolate, and failure to have points of engagement will surely lead to rather flat, mechanical play; the more he relies on abstractions like Kismet to defend himself from these challenges, the more he will have to work to avoid it.

[TonyLB]

I believe that all of that is incorrect, specifically, I believe:
-There are ways to validly play Capes effectively and well without using coercive play.
-I can play in such a way as to be uncoercible, and still partake in a valid Capes game that is fun and fulfilling for all.
-I can play in such a way as to avoid coercing others, and still partake in a valid Capes game that is fun and fulfilling for all.

And I'm fine with you believing it.  But you need to learn to difference between believing it and having made any sort of argument for it.

You can avoid being coerced, and you can avoid coercing others.  You've made good arguments that you can do those things.  But doing either (much less both) of those things cripples your ability to push Capes strategy.  As before:  You can play football without pushing people, and without being pushed, but if other people are willing to rough-house then they will beat you.

You can play Capes the way you're describing, but other people are going to blow right past you, and you will end up marginalized.

Are you arguing that you can play Capes in the way you're describing and still keep pace with other players who aren't so limited?

[Andrew Cooper]

Sindyr,

You need to go test your theory and beliefs.  Sit down at a table and play Kismet (or some facimile of him) with players who both know what they are doing with Capes and don't play that type of character.  See what happens.  I don't know what will happen.  I've never done this before.  What I suspect will happen is that you will find yourself falling behind in terms of Story Tokens, Debt and Inspirations.  I also suspect that you will become to a certain extent marginalized as the other players fail to find you engaging and simply engage with each other in ways they find exciting and entertaining.

Now sit down and play Kismet with a group that also plays that type of character.  I think you'll find the experience somewhat different but you'll have to have discussed the basis of the game on a social level before play.  Otherwise you just end up in the same situation that I described in the first paragraph.

This is the type of thing that backs up your beliefs with something more substantial.  You then have Actual Play experience that demonstrates your points (or not).  Tony, the others here, and I all have enough play experience to say, "The system rewards this type of behavior.  Players will behave this way during play."  That's not just our belief.  It is demonstratable.  We've seen it happen.  Tony designed it that way.  It works that way.  If you try something else and demonstrate that it works another way under certain conditions, we'll consider that.  But until then you're just throwing your beliefs in front of our experience and it doesn't amount to much in the way of convincing us of anything.

*NOTE:  I personally think playing a game where the players are all The Force of Good, Hand of Fate... et al.  Would be fun.  I'd certainly try it with you if you are going to be at GenCon.  So, I'm not saying your idea of everyone playing that type of character is a bad one.

[Sindyr]

And I'm fine with you believing it.  But you need to learn to difference between believing it and having made any sort of argument for it.

Please do not presume to tell me what I need to do, I find it insulting, as would anyone - its either condescending or arrogant, and definitely not helpful.  It would have been better had you said: "Whether or not you believe it, you haven't yet demonstrated or made any arguments for it"

I will reply to what you should have said:

I am open to providing you my arguments and demostration for those statements.  But only if you can convince me that there is a reason to.  I have half come to the conlusion that you are not open to any possibility that I may be right.  If that is true, than the only reason you would want me to list my arguments is to have something to attack - not to actually consider them.  Considering how I felt that you went innapropriately on the attack earlier out of the blue, I admit to not having much trust in your motivations, so before I set myself up I would like an assurance on your part to examine my arguments thoroughly, objectively and rationally, with no preconceptions, but truthfully I am not sure you can do that at this time where I  or my ideas are concerned.  I am not gong to open myself up to attack without thinking there's a reasonable chance that you are open to the possibility that I may be right and are willing to make a real effort to try to be open to that.  At the moment, I do not sense that.

You can avoid being coerced, and you can avoid coercing others.  You've made good arguments that you can do those things.  But doing either (much less both) of those things cripples your ability to push Capes strategy.  As before:  You can play football without pushing people, and without being pushed, but if other people are willing to rough-house then they will beat you.

You can play Capes the way you're describing, but other people are going to blow right past you, and you will end up marginalized.

I am not closed to the possible truth of this, but to my eyes and mind you have not yet demonstrated that this *must* be the case. I am not ruling it out, but I am not jumping on board either.

Are you arguing that you can play Capes in the way you're describing and still keep pace with other players who aren't so limited?

Mainly, I am arguing that you have not demostrated that I can't, so it's an open question.  There after all three posibilities:
1) You demonstrate that abandoning unconsensual coercive play is innefective when up against those that do not. You have yet to demonstrate this to me.
2) I demonstrate that abandoning unconsensual coercive play can be quite effective, even when up against those that do not.  I have yet to demonstarte this to you, apparently.
3) Until either 1) or 2) occur, neither of us can validly make any claims to each other about whether or not abandoning nonconsensual coercive play is either effective or ineffective.  In other words, me failing to demonstrate to you how this play can be effective does not entitle you to claim to have demonstrated the opposite, without actually making a demostration that convinces me, and vice versa.

I mention this because in order to demonstrate your point, you should know you have to do more than undercut mine.

Again, I ask, is this actually on topic here?

[Bret Gillan]

Sindyr,

Play Kismet. I'd love to see what happens. Post some actual play here so we can see what goes on. :)

I'm still working on Gods and in my (admittedly limited) actual play I've found that anything can be played as a viable character and engaged - in the one AP I posted here I actually played a network of caves inhabited by blind albino creatures. Now, that was not an unengagable character and my friend Jeff actually had his Sorcerer-King use magic to take control of all my critters (in spite of my "Oh NO you DIDN'T!"), so I'm interested in seeing if you can successfully avoid being engaged by the other players.

Good luck.

[Sindyr]

You need to go test your theory and beliefs. 

I completely agree, and this is one reason why I am happy that I will hopefully have started a weekly local Capes group.

Sit down at a table and play Kismet (or some facimile of him) with players who both know what they are doing with Capes and don't play that type of character.  See what happens.  I don't know what will happen.  I've never done this before.  What I suspect will happen is that you will find yourself falling behind in terms of Story Tokens, Debt and Inspirations.  I also suspect that you will become to a certain extent marginalized as the other players fail to find you engaging and simply engage with each other in ways they find exciting and entertaining.

Finding experienced Capes players to sit down with may simply not be possible.  I may try this out at Dexcon, unless not permitted to, but I don't travel farther than a hundred miles or so from where I live (NH) so my opportunities for playing with already experienced Capes players may be limited greatly.  I hope however to grow some of my own right here. :)

Now sit down and play Kismet with a group that also plays that type of character.  I think you'll find the experience somewhat different but you'll have to have discussed the basis of the game on a social level before play.  Otherwise you just end up in the same situation that I described in the first paragraph.

This is the type of thing that backs up your beliefs with something more substantial.  You then have Actual Play experience that demonstrates your points (or not).  Tony, the others here, and I all have enough play experience to say, "The system rewards this type of behavior.  Players will behave this way during play."  That's not just our belief.  It is demonstratable.  We've seen it happen.  Tony designed it that way.  It works that way.  If you try something else and demonstrate that it works another way under certain conditions, we'll consider that.  But until then you're just throwing your beliefs in front of our experience and it doesn't amount to much in the way of convincing us of anything.

*NOTE:  I personally think playing a game where the players are all The Force of Good, Hand of Fate... et al.  Would be fun.  I'd certainly try it with you if you are going to be at GenCon.  So, I'm not saying your idea of everyone playing that type of character is a bad one.

I think I agree with everything you have said, and am taking what steps I can to make it happen. In the meanwhile, however, I still intend to continue to foster and participate in discussions about it so long as I find likeminded people who find it worth discussing.

[Sindyr]

Sindyr is finding ways (within the rules as written) to carve out certain inviolate narrative space. Tony is saying that, if you end up not having anywhere to be challenged, Capes won't work. These are not incompatible things. Why can't Sindyr have spaces that are 'inviolate', as long as he has plenty of places where he can be challenged, where he does *care* what happens, even if it's not 'his character getting altered' kinds of challenges? If Sindyr, the player, really wants a romantic triangle in the story, even if he's not playing one of the characters directly, he's going to get heavily involved and committed to conflicts bringing out the conflict. Even if none of the characters anywhere in the story are his 'avatar', I can certainly imagine him getting engaged and stoked about defending certain aspects of the story. On the other hand, Sindyr could do this just as easily with a personaed (is that a word?) character, not letting himself get too attached to the character any more than he would as affecting the story as Kismet; but maybe Sindyr finds that kind of detachment from 'his' characters difficult to achieve.

This seems to me to be very accurate, and probably states some of what I am trying to state better than I yet have.  Thank you.

[Sindyr]

Now, that was not an unengagable character and my friend Jeff actually had his Sorcerer-King use magic to take control of all my critters (in spite of my "Oh NO you DIDN'T!"), so I'm interested in seeing if you can successfully avoid being engaged by the other players.

Good luck.

Actually, one note, and please, all take note of this: I a NOT trying to avoid being engaged by other players, I am trying to avoid being FORCED into it.  I certainly plan to choose to be engaged in countless things.  If someone goes after spiderman, to make him turn evil, I am probably going to fight tooth and nail to stop that.  The two main differences, and one or both of these may be differences in my perception, are: 1) I don't feel forced into this conflicts - I feel that I *could* simply choose not to get involved - I *don't* have to be reactive, I can be deliberate, and 2) should I lose the conflict, I am more easily able to return to a larger perspective and think "Oh well - perhaps this *had* to be this way for the greater good" and continue to pursue the narrative visions that excite me.  In this way, losing Spiderman does not mean that I can't turn immediately to the story of Sandman, or whatnot.

Those two things I think will make Capes a lot more fun for me, and reduce other's player's fun not one whit, for the most part.

[TonyLB]

Considering how I felt that you went innapropriately on the attack earlier out of the blue, I admit to not having much trust in your motivations, so before I set myself up I would like an assurance on your part to examine my arguments thoroughly, objectively and rationally, with no preconceptions, but truthfully I am not sure you can do that at this time where I  or my ideas are concerned.  I am not gong to open myself up to attack without thinking there's a reasonable chance that you are open to the possibility that I may be right and are willing to make a real effort to try to be open to that.  At the moment, I do not sense that.

Great!  Don't make your arguments.  That's your prerogative.

Every time (every time) you bring this topic up, I will point out that you have never made any arguments for your beliefs.

You want to lament that I'm being unfair?  Go right ahead.  But don't claim that you haven't been warned.

Oh wait ... your whole sense of betrayal is based in the idea that you hadn't been warned, that this response came "out of the blue," rather than being exactly what I told you I'd do months ago.  So ... uh ... don't claim that again, I guess.